Was the proletariat uprising (Bolshevism) against Tsarist autocracy in Russia co-opted by Trotsky to create a “shell government” that was actually an authoritarian oligarchy instead of what we call Soviet Communism?
Need to read the history of the event. It was much more complicated than that.
No, Trotsky got exiled. How was it coopted by him? Fuck that slimy bitch.
Trotsky was one of the leaders of the revolution...??? He was only exiled in the political turmoil after Lenin’s death and before Stalin’s takeover.
What’s the question? Trotsky wanted to co-opt the revolution, but he was purged and then executed. ⛏
Well the revolution and murder of tsar Nicholas succeeded. The revolution happened before Trotsky was exiled. The question is... well I feel confident I worded it right. Hit the question tab to the upper left.
Trotsky was instrumental throughout the entirety of the revolution and was also instrumental afterward with the change-over in government with Lenin. Idk maybe check out the history before commenting authoritatively.
Maybe it’s a difference in what I call the revolution. I guess it’s thought to include the civil war after the tsar abdicated. I was thinking it was only really called a revolution up until abdication. I still don’t know really. I guess putting Trotsky’s name in the question was a bad idea because he wasn’t really my focus. The forms of government and how we perceive it were. So if I misunderstood.
*sorry if I misunderstood
Trotsky didn't join the Bolsheviks until April 1917. His importance is largely exaggerated by Trotskyists.
Well I did just say that I shouldn’t have put him in there. Did you watch the video? What are your thoughts on the parts of the question that I laid out in the previous comment, that are the actual parts I was concerned with, not Trotsky.
I think you’ve made your feelings well known about Trotsky.
You mean, it wasn't co-opted by Trotsky, but it was co-opted in general, and that it wasn't real communism?
I disagree with the narrative. From a semantic perspective I think Soviet communism I'd a misnomer, because they themselves never claimed that the USSR was communist (only socialist). But I think overall it was real socialism, and it worked pretty well, and the masses were pretty engaged. So it's pretty cool.
Yes that’s basically what I was wanting to get opinions on. Thanks
Benseth came here from poll with a bunch of radicals and you got hated ok for not being crazy.
Huh? Bist du Deutscher? Versuche es nochmal im Deutsch if so.
It might just be punctuation messing me up though
I think I get it now. Danke
I understood that and am German but I don't speak German fluently
No. One minute in and I could tell the person asking the question was a radical idiot.
Wait... so ...I’m confused. “No” to the question? I’m not really worried about what the woman said. It’s about what Chomsky says.
Anyway, she seemed to oppose the idea that was posed in the question so...Are you saying no just because you didn’t like how the woman(that was only in the first few minutes)sounded? Or are you basing it on the actual question?
Don't be a radical
Well I would have been interested in your actual opinion, especially since your name has Russia in it. But I guess not.
Oh alright....I’ll watch the whole thing. You are implying I was ignoring the whole thing...you were right
I’ll watch it now
Yeah it was difficult for me to get past her talking the first time also. I wish they had cut that part out.
Ok, to be fair. I watched, Sergei watched it (but can’t comment because we are now not allowed to comment on each other’s posts) and my mother will have my father watch it when he gets home.
What Chomsky ignored in this statement was the civil war. Lenin did lead a popular uprising. However, the Petrograd Duma was in place and the czar had already abdicated. This was kind of modeled after a Republic. He came back after the czar fell. I’m from Petersburg where it all started. It was chaotic. My great grandfather was part of the uprising. However, a lot of foreign money was funneled into the whites. Trotsky was a good strategist and the reds won. Lenin had to make more and more decisions as the de facto red leader during the civil war. This brutality and repression occurred partly because of the civil war.
Lenin favored Trotsky to take his place but Stalin intercepted the envelope to be read by Krupskaya. Stalin then took Lenin’s place when Lenin died, possibly of syphilis.
In reality, Alexander Fyodorovich, had led a revolution, overthrown the Tsar (and was keeping them safe until they could be exiled) and was trying to get the country established from Petrograd (Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad/Petersburg) when the Germans and Finns “gifted” Russia with Lenin. In reality, Vladimir Ilyich came back to fight for what was already somewhat happening, just in a different way than he wanted. Lenin wanted blood. Stalin secured it for him.
Some older people will say “the revolution already happened and Lenin missed it, so he just started a new one”. In the civil war that followed, it was inevitable if the reds won, Lenin would rule. He had tasted authoritarian rule during the war that followed the October revolution and he was not going to give that up.
Stalin was a clear psychopath. The division was between Stalin and Trotsky. Trotsky was a revolutionary. Stalin a psychopath. Stalin won. History was changed.
If you want, we will ask my grandparents still in Petersburg. Both of my mothers parents grew up with their own stories from their own grandparents who participated. My mothers paternal grandfather was a die hard red during the revolution and came to regret his decision.
Btw, Russian children during the days of the USSR knew about Noam Chomsky. They were told he was trying to “peacefully” gather people for a communist uprising.
Under Stalin, it was a complete totalitarian regime. Under Nikita Sergeyevich, a little less so. He abolished the troikas, local parties had more authority.
It was partly because of this that Leonid Ilyich led a coup against him. He tasted power. Once he was in control, repression started again. He was not a psychopath, just a narcissist.
I think Chomsky left out the crucial civil war that marked Lenin as totally power hungry and he is right, he used a socialist cause to obtain power.
Okay thanks. That was revelatory. I’m probably gonna read up more on it while I have spare time. Especially on the civil war. Mostly my question pertained to the differences that the forms of government changed into from tsar rule-> Bolshevism-> whatever you call what was implemented afterward - I guess various forms of authoritarian oligarchy mixed with socialism or capitalism later. And also, the difference in our perception as Americans of actually what form of government it was at the time and still now. It’s always just been defined to me as communism. Thanks for you views.
And I guess the uprising wasn’t completely Bolshevik? As much as it was just anti tsar? And then the civil war was about whether they wanted to be Bolshevik or another form of government?
And, if I remember right, Lenin wanted blood because his brother was killed by tsar powers? This period in time is so tumultuous and interesting all around the world but seems so much more so in Russia.
Aleksandr Ilyich was Vladimir Ilyich’s brother. He was hung by the Tsar. He was part of Narodnaya Volya, which was a political revolutionary party. The Tsar offered them a deal to denounce their ideology to avoid hanging. Many took the deal. A few did not. Sasha did not.
That episode triggered two things in Lenin. A loathing and bloodlust for the Tsar and a dislike of the Russian people, believe it or not. Their mother tried to get to the prison to see her son and to plead for his life. Lenin was dispatched to find someone to take them. I cannot remember why they had no transportation available at that moment. The neighbors, once friends, all turned their backs, literally, to his pleas.
The Okhrana followed Vladimir Lenin, expelled him from University, exiled him, took away his citizenship....because he was Sasha’s brother.
The one thing Lenin wanted more than anything (well, besides power) was the blood of the royal family flowing onto the ground. He got it.
He sure did. Thanks for sharing your understanding of this. It has piqued my interest to look into it further.
The Romanov dynasty allowed the serfdom system to continue long after it should have been abolished. Nikolai II was destined to be the last. His father, Alexander III did NOTHING to prepare him. Nikolai was dimwitted and then married his even more dimwitted cousin who was also the product of a cousin to cousin marriage. Honestly, they inbred themselves to extinction.
Then....I hate to say it but you have to consider WWI and Rasputin in the fall of the monarchy as well. Under Nikolai II, Russia was quickly losing wars, prestige etc and the monarchy had become fodder for local gossip in Petersburg. Rasputin was there because Alexei had hemophilia (it caused problems in many royal houses in Europe). Still, Nikolai was the wrong guy in the wrong job at the wrong time.
As a Jew, I can safely say few rulers are as deserving of his fate as he was but it’s a shame the children had to die.
You are welcome
It would be interesting to know why your great grandfather changed views if you do end up asking your grandparents.
He was more happy with the provisional government. Stalin was a problem. Life under Stalin was terrifying for those who were there from the beginning. Many were very wary of Stalin. Many were very scared of him. As a Jew, people lived in as much fear of Stalin as they did the Tsar.
When Stalin implemented his 5 year plan, you kept your head down and worked as hard as you could to avoid being sent somewhere where you would be worked to death or shot for not working hard enough.
Then, once the country was more modernized, you were proud but then came the war. Kerensky could not have handled Hitler like Stalin did. It was the ruthlessness of Stalin that won that war because he was not a great military strategist and he killed most of the skilled strategists.
In fact, the USSR rocket program was basically stopped because Stalin had the scientists killed or exiled. Then Stalin was like, “shit, get me back my scientists”...
“Yeah, well....umm, only a few can be brought back because you had the others executed in a purge”.
Even then, he was sent to sharashka where he was still a prisoner.
He had drained the intelligencia to the point to the point that even with the plans from the Manhattan project, he had trouble finding people who could build it. His paranoia nearly destroyed the country he was the leader of. Kind of like Hitler’s did destroy his.
So he mostly regretted supporting the reds because it allowed a political environment that paved the way for Stalin and his madness? Or because the whites or other colors had better ideologies? Do you think there would have been less Russian casualties on the battlefield in ww2 with a different leader?
In retrospect the whites needed to have a set ideology. They were like a box that had a lot of different things in it, none relating to the other. If they could have just organized, it might have been different. The social equality line of the reds was compelling for people who had been raised as or by people who had lived as serfs. Communism sounds great in theory. It’s just theory. Humans muck it up every time.
The casualties might have been less. Much less. Lenin and the reds confiscated guns. At the start of the war, two guys had to share a gun. The casualties were very high. Stalin didn’t think Hitler would attack. He misjudged that but blamed others.
Most people now believe Beria poisoned Stalin with a warfarin type drug. I’m actually not a conspiracy theorist but I’m open to this possibility.